srotta: yes. the movie industry needs to be beat up a couple more years
2008-01-04 00453, 2008
srotta
Well, in the end they are the same industry.
2008-01-04 00435, 2008
ruaok
yup.
2008-01-04 00417, 2008
mudcrow
nikki, the release date seems pointless to me, and extremeley confusing as to what the date actually refers to. when it was remixed? when it was released? when the original was released?
unfortunately i don't have a physical copy at all (yet) :(
2008-01-04 00402, 2008
mudcrow
i'm going to correct it as it has only been released on vinyl, so the mess up in tracks is down to the ripper.militant strike is 35 seconds long, the 10 second track 18 is the last part of primeval
2008-01-04 00413, 2008
mudcrow
the mp3 for milatant strike is actually militant strike and elm park tramp
nikki, I'd say the same about the artist on 9. And yeah, I can confirm those are composers (recognize some of the song titles)
2008-01-04 00426, 2008
juhae
thanks for the votes!
2008-01-04 00414, 2008
hawke
mudcrow/nikki: I can discuss the inclusion of the date in the "is a remix of" relations for the Evil Morning release in here, if you prefer that to the MB comments system
2008-01-04 00431, 2008
mudcrow
sure
2008-01-04 00412, 2008
hawke
mudcrow: Did you get my latest comment?
2008-01-04 00420, 2008
mudcrow
one sec let me look
2008-01-04 00454, 2008
mudcrow
ok, as you said the date relates to the release of the remix, not when the remix was made, which would be the only date appropiate in my opinion for that.
2008-01-04 00451, 2008
mudcrow
but as i said it was a suggestion, i didnt feel that strongly enough to vote no
2008-01-04 00454, 2008
hawke
The problem I see with not having it, is that the date information is lost to MB, because each track is a different date, and the release date of the entire release is just the release date of the final track.
2008-01-04 00454, 2008
mudcrow
but if they all have been previously released, then why not add the individual releases as well
2008-01-04 00403, 2008
hawke
They haven't, as far as I know
2008-01-04 00417, 2008
hawke
It's a digital-only release
2008-01-04 00433, 2008
mudcrow
so where are the release dates for the remixes from? I presumed that release date meant when it was originally released
2008-01-04 00440, 2008
hawke
each track was released in a blog-style release over a period of several years.
2008-01-04 00458, 2008
hawke
the entire collection is named, hence it being a "release" in MB
that contains the dates for individual track releases
2008-01-04 00458, 2008
mudcrow
ah! one of those type of releases. Dunno, I think the inclusion of the date is confusing, but I'm not going to vote no on the edits.
2008-01-04 00446, 2008
hawke
I'd be happy to change it if there's a better/more appropriate way to record that information, I just don't see one. I guess I can't see any other use of the date field on that particular relationship though.
2008-01-04 00449, 2008
brianfreud
track annotations?
2008-01-04 00437, 2008
hawke
hmm, maybe. I forgot about the existence of those. :-D
his take on sortnames reminds me of a mis-translation I ran into the other week... Someone had double translated "sortname" to Korean or whatever they spoke, and got "Short Name" - so they were editing to shorten the band names in the sortname field
2008-01-04 00421, 2008
ojnkpjg
i wonder if there's any valid use of a 0 track album
2008-01-04 00425, 2008
ojnkpjg
seems like a server bug
2008-01-04 00402, 2008
mudcrow
i have a 0 track album, its called a blank cd-r
2008-01-04 00414, 2008
bplatt
I wonder how many 0 track albums are in the DB...
2008-01-04 00401, 2008
ojnkpjg
10
2008-01-04 00447, 2008
brianfreud
bplatt: on the separated ARs... I'd be very hesitent to go down the route you seemed to be describing in your last email - having separated ARs which are otherwise identical but specific level sounds like it could get more confusing than what you're trying to avoid
brianfreud: I'm very much on the fence about that which is why I asked if there was a specific proposal for the release-level producer ARs that Chris B mentioned.
2008-01-04 00437, 2008
bplatt
(I looked back through the -style archives, but couldn't find prior mention of that)
2008-01-04 00448, 2008
brianfreud
nor I
2008-01-04 00407, 2008
bplatt
If there were only a few of them, and they were worded in such a way as their distinct meanings were clear, it could work.
lol, all three of us seem to have had the same idea all at once
2008-01-04 00416, 2008
ojnkpjg
yeah, i started from the end
2008-01-04 00428, 2008
ojnkpjg
i think mudcrow started from the front
2008-01-04 00431, 2008
ojnkpjg
and we overlapped
2008-01-04 00448, 2008
brianfreud
hmm, I started in the middle :P
2008-01-04 00455, 2008
brianfreud
took a second for a track ticket too
2008-01-04 00404, 2008
ojnkpjg
hehe
2008-01-04 00456, 2008
brianfreud
bplatt: Oliver (panda) seemed the most concerned about there being such production ARs that needed the distinction - if you don't hear from him may want to email him
2008-01-04 00420, 2008
tro joined the channel
2008-01-04 00430, 2008
bplatt
Ah yes - I was looking for his posts earlier but couldn't find them in the thread...
2008-01-04 00456, 2008
bplatt
I'll give it a day or so to see if he expresses a viewpoint.
